Loading...
none, , Correspondencer City `Roetin9_AIL B. ALLEN LAY Mayor FRANK E. HILL Mayor Pro Tem THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Councilmember JODY MURDOCK Councilmember GODFREY PERNELL, D.D.S. Councilmember August 26, 1997 • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 Mr. Stanley Lamport Cox, Castle & Nicholson, LLP 2049 Century Park East, 28th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-3284 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 545A, CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIED REQUESTS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A STABLE AND CORRAL BY THE INABILITY OF THE COMMISSION TO MAKE AFFIRMATIVE FINDINGS ON THE APPLICATIONS BY MAJORITY VOTE. MS. KELLY TSOU, 6 RINGBIT ROAD WEST (LOT 8-A-2-SF). Dear Mr. Lamport: At the City Council meeting held Monday, August 25, 1997, City Councilmembers continued the above referenced public hearing to October 13, 1997. The City Council considered your written request to continue this case to September 8, 1997. However, members of the City Council that were involved in formulating the technical questions that you are responding to relative to this case (attached) are unable to attend the City Council meetings during the month of September. Additionally, just prior to the meeting, Mr. Doug McHattie of South Bay Engineering indicated that, after conferring with you, there would be no objection to continuing this case to October 13, 1997. We look forward to receiving your responses to the enclosed letter as soon as possible. We will need at least four separate copies of your response. We will transmit a copy of the report to the County of Los Angeles for their review and to members of the public that have expressed concern about this case. ®Printed on Recycled Paper. Mr. Stanley Lamport August 26,1997 Page 2 Thank you for your cooperation. We look forward to seeing you at the City Council meeting on Monday, October 13, 1997, beginning 7:30 p.m. in the Rolling Hills City Council Chambers, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills. Sincerely, Craig R. Nealis City Manager CRN:mlk 08/26/971amport.ltr cc: City Council Ms. Lola Ungar, Planning Director Ms. Lata Thakar, District Engineer Mr. Robert Thomas, L.A. County Ms. Kelly Tsou Mr. Doug McHattie Mr. Roger North Dr. & Mrs. Alfred Marrone Mr. Bill Horn Dr. Gordon Schaye Mr. Charles Raine Mr. Ron Dessy Mr. Paul Bussey, City Manager, RPV Mr. and Mrs. Fritz Hartwig Mr. John McCarthy, Chairman Klondike Canyon Geologic Hazard Abatement District Mr. and Mrs. James Dederer Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Hummel Mrs. Gwendolyn Tucker Mr. and Mrs. Todd Lanman Mr. Patrick L. Wilson/Ms. Nancy Ann Bell Ms. Peggy Minor, RHCA Manager NCay 0/ Polling ihit B. ALLEN LAY Mayer FRAM(HILL Moyer Pro Tom THOUP.3 F. tiSHElf AEA Councknomber JOOY MJRDOCK Cou ndknembor GOOFRBY PERNELL, D.D.S. Gvwndmeml»r • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1937 NO.2 POATUOuESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274 (3101377.1 b21 FAX: (3101377•728 Emait cttythP44o1.com July 16,1997 Mr. Stanley Lamport Cox, Castle & Nicholson, LLP 2049 Century Park East, Twenty-eight Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-3284 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 545A, CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIED REQUESTS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A STABLE AND CORRAL BY THE INABILITY OF THE COMMISSION TO MAKE AFFIRMATIVE FINDINGS ON THE APPLICATIONS BY MAJORITY VOTE. MS. KELLY TSOU, 6 RINGBIT ROAD WEST (LOT 8-A-2-SF). Dear Mr. Lamport: At the regular meeting of the Rolling Hills City Council held Monday, July 14, 1997, the City Council continued consideration of the above referenced case to Monday, August 25, 1997. This hearing will be held in the Rolling Hills City Council Chambers, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, beginning at 7:30 p.m. As discussed at the meeting, you were directed to provide a report(s) addressing the following concerns. We will distribute this material to our soils and geology representatives at the County of Los Angeles, as well as the interested parties for their review and comment prior to the hearing on August 25th. Specifically, your report(s) should focus on: ♦ Effects of hydrology --how drainage will move from the property over time due to its proximity to the properties below and an evaluation of any possible disproportionate effect of that flow based upon this proximity. You should focus on 10, 20 and 50 year storm scenarios. ♦ Bedrock and recompaction issues --proof of bedrock and compaction above bedrock, proof of actual recompaction area necessary for completion of this project. The proof of bedrock should focus on the depth of the bedrock over a larger area than was presented at the hearing on July 14th. P..nted on Pecycted Pape. Mr. Stanley Lamport July 16,1997 Page 2 • Stages of grading-- a graphic representation of proposed grading activities on the property over time. Perhaps, you could create grading maps which would show five stages of grading at 20% intervals until completion. This study should demonstrate where excavated soil will be stored on the property, the total volume amount of soil to be moved during the cut and fill process, depth of cuts, height of fills and procedures that will be taken to ensure that soil and debris will not enter or deface the canyon below the property. Additionally, you should carefully demonstrate how far down the slopes the grading and soil modifications will occur at every interval of this process. • Stable location --an additional stable location that would not necessitate a Variance. Be sure to evaluate this location in terms of its proximity to the residence (35 feet from residence and 25 feet from property line required), and the ability to provide vehicular access to the stable at a 4:1 (25% slope). ♦ Quantity of hardscape--a detailed drawing of the quantity of hardscape. • Distance from Flying Triangle --there has been some difference of opinion as to the distance between this property, the proposed graded area and the Flying Triangle. Your demonstration of this distance in graphic form will be appreciated. We would appreciate having this information submitted to the City no later than Wednesday, August 6, 1997. If you are unable to meet this deadline, please call us at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your cooperation. If you wish to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Craig R. Nealis City Manager CRN:mlk c, u.r. (..,-n n. cc: City Council Ms. Lola Ungar, Planning Director Ms. Kelly Tsou Mr. Doug McHattie Mr. Roger North Dr. and Mrs. Alfred Marrone Mr. Bill Horn Dr. Gordon Schaye Mr. Charles Raine Mr. Ron Dessy Mr. and Mrs. Fritz Hartwig Mr. John McCarthy, Chairman Klondike Canyon Geologic Hazard Abatement District Mr. and Mrs. James Dederer Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Hummel Mrs. Gwendolyn Tucker Mr. and Mrs. Todd Lanman Mr. Patrick L. Wilson/Ms. Nancy Ann Bell t DDDCity Oy �O�>G`•n�}L[.iL� INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 B. ALLEN LAY Mayor FRANK E. HILL Mayor Pro Tem THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Councilmember JODY MURDOCK Councilmember GODFREY PERNELL, D.D.S. Councilmember August 26, 1997 Mr. John McCarthy, Chairman Klondike Canyon Geologic Hazard Abatement District P.O. Box 7000-142 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 545A, CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIED REQUESTS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A STABLE AND CORRAL BY THE INABILITY OF THE COMMISSION TO MAKE AFFIRMATIVE FINDINGS ON THE APPLICATIONS BY MAJORITY VOTE. MS. KELLY TSOU, 6 RINGBIT ROAD WEST (LOT 8-A-2-SF). Dear Mr. McCarthy: At the City Council meeting held Monday, August 25, 1997, City Councilmembers continued the above referenced case to the City Council meeting to be held on Monday, October 13, 1997. At the meeting, it was reported that a member of the City Council, who was instrumental in creating the technical questions to be answered by the applicant, would not be able to attend the City Council meetings during the month of September. Additionally, a representative of the applicant previously expressed to staff that they would not object to this appeal hearing being continued to October 13, 1997. You will be forwarded a copy of the applicant's responses to the questions in the attached letter. We have also enclosed a copy of the correspondence that we have sent to the applicant's representative regarding this continuance. ®Printed On Recycled Paper. t Mr. John McCarthy August 26, 1997 Page 2 Therefore, this appeal will be considered by the City Council at their meeting on Monday, October 13, 1997, beginning at 7:30 p.m. in the Rolling Hills City Council Chambers, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills. Should you wish to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, c$1 114 Craig R. Nealis City Manager CRN:mlk 08/26/97tsoucontinue.ltrs cc: City Council Ms. Lola Ungar, Planning Director Robert Thomas, L.A. County Ms. Kelly Tsou Mr. Stanley Lamport Mr. Doug McHattie Mr. Roger North Mr. Bill Horn • Dr. Gordon Schaye Mr. Charles Raine Mr. Ron Dessy Mr. Paul Bussey, City Manager, RPV Mr. and Mrs. Fritz Hartwig Mr. John McCarthy, Chairman Klondike Canyon Geologic Hazard Abatement District Mr. and Mrs. James Dederer Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Hummel Mrs. Gwendolyn Tucker Mr. and Mrs. Todd Lanman Mr. Patrick L. Wilson/Ms. Nancy Ann Bell •City ot Rolling S. ALLEN LAY Wry MAW E. HILL Wror Pro Tun THOW.S F. HEINSHEIMER Coin rnombor JODY I,IURDOCK Cocndim+mbisr GODFREY PERNELL, D.0.S. Counclimomber I INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1937 NO.2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 110274 (310) 377.1521 FAX 0101377.72110 E•m&It c►tyo(rt+4*olcom July 16,1997 Mr. Stanley Lamport Cox, Castle & Nicholson, LLP 2049 Century Park East, Twenty-eight Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-3284 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO, 545A, CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIED REQUESTS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A STABLE AND CORRAL BY THE INABILITY OF THE COMMISSION TO MAKE AFFIRMATIVE FINDINGS ON THE APPLICATIONS BY MAJORITY VOTE. MS. KELLY TSOU, 6 RINGBIT ROAD WEST (LOT 8-A-2-SF). Dear Mr. Lamport: At the regular meeting of the Rolling Hills City Council held Monday, July 14, 1997, the City Council continued consideration of the above referenced case to Monday, August 25, 1997. This hearing will be held in the Rolling Hills City Council Chambers, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, beginning at 7:30 p.m. As discussed at the meeting, you were directed to provide a report(s) addressing the following concerns. We will distribute this material to our soils and geology representatives at the County of Los Angeles, as well as the interested parties for their review and comment prior•to the hearing on August 25th. Specifically, your report(s) should focus on: ♦ Effects of hydrology --how drainage will move from the property over time due to its proximity to the properties below and an evaluation of any possible disproportionate effect of that flow based upon this proximity. You should focus on 10, 20 and 50 year storm scenarios. • Bedrock and recompaction issues --proof of bedrock and compaction above bedrock, proof of actual recompaction area necessary for completion of this project. The proof of bedrock should focus on the depth of the bedrock over a larger area than was presented at the hearing on July 14th. Pr."te0 or Recycietl Pape, Mr. Stanley Lamport July 16,1997 Page 2 • Stages of grading-- a graphic representation of proposed grading activities on the property over time. Perhaps, you could create grading maps which would show five stages of grading at 20% intervals until completion. This study should demonstrate where excavated soil will be stored on the property, the total volume amount of soil to be moved during the cut and fill process, depth of cuts, height of fills and procedures that will be taken to ensure that soil and debris will not enter or deface the canyon below the property. Additionally, you should carefully demonstrate how far down the slopes the grading and soil modifications will occur at every interval of this process. • Stable location --an additional stable location that would not necessitate a Variance. Be sure to evaluate this location in terms of its proximity to the residence (35 feet from residence and 25 feet from property line required), and the ability to provide vehicular access to the stable at a 4:1 (25% slope). • Quantity of hardscape--a detailed drawing of the quantity of hardscape. • Distance from Flying Triangle --there has been some difference of opinion as to the distance between this property, the proposed graded area and the Flying Triangle. Your demonstration of this distance in graphic form will be appreciated. We would appreciate having this information submitted to the City no later than Wednesday, August 6, 1997. If you are unable to meet this deadline, please call us at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your cooperation. If you wish to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, 5X1(lk Craig R. Nealis City Manager CRN:mlk C J .r. Y-,an a, cc: City Council Ms. Lola Ungar, Planning Director Ms. Kelly Tsou Mr. Doug McHattie Mr. Roger North Dr. and Mrs. Alfred Marrone Mr. Bill Horn Dr. Gordon Schaye Mr. Charles Raine Mr. Ron Dessy Mr. and Mrs. Fritz Hartwig Mr. John McCarthy, Chairman Klondike Canyon Geologic Hazard Abatement District Mr. and Mrs. James Dederer Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Hummel Mrs. Gwendolyn Tucker Mr. and Mrs. Todd Unman Mr. Patrick L. Wilson/Ms. Nancy Ann Bell Cityolallin 9.�tr. B. ALLEN LAY Mayor FRANK E. HILL Mayor Pro Tern THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Councilmember JODY MURDOCK Councilmember GODFREY PERNELL, D.D.S. Councilmember August 26, 1997 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 Dr. and Mrs. Alfred Marrone 17 Southfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 545A, CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIED REQUESTS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A STABLE AND CORRAL BY THE INABILITY OF THE COMMISSION TO MAKE AFFIRMATIVE FINDINGS ON THE APPLICATIONS BY MAJORITY VOTE. MS. KELLY TSOU, 6 RINGBIT ROAD WEST (LOT 8-A-2-SF). Dear Dr. and Mrs. Marrone: At the City Council meeting held Monday, August 25, 1997, City Councilmembers continued the above referenced case to the City Council meeting to be held on Monday, October 13, 1997. At the meeting, it was reported that a member of the City Council, who was instrumental in creating the technical questions to be answered by the applicant, would not be able to attend the City Council meetings during the month of September. Additionally, a representative of the applicant previously expressed to staff that they would not object to this appeal hearing being continued to October 13, 1997. You will be forwarded a copy of the applicant's responses to the questions in the attached letter. We have also enclosed a copy of the correspondence that we have sent to the applicant's representative regarding this continuance. Printed on Recycled Paper. • • Dr. and Mrs. Alfred Marrone August 26,1997 Page 2 Therefore, this appeal will be considered by the City Council at their meeting on Monday, October 13, 1997, beginning at 7:30 p.m. in the Rolling Hills City Council Chambers, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills. Should you wish to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, 5'4'4 Craig R. Nealis City Manager CRN:mlk 08/26/97tsoucontinue.ltrs cc: City Council Ms. Lola Ungar, Planning Director Robert Thomas, L.A. County Ms. Kelly Tsou Mr. Stanley Lamport Mr. Doug McHattie Mr. Roger North Mr. Bill Horn Dr. Gordon Schaye Mr. Charles Raine Mr. Ron Dessy Mr. Paul Bussey, City Manager, RPV Mr. and Mrs. Fritz Hartwig Mr. John McCarthy, Chairman Klondike Canyon Geologic Hazard Abatement District Mr. and Mrs. James Dederer Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Hummel Mrs. Gwendolyn Tucker Mr. and Mrs. Todd Lanman Mr. Patrick L. Wilson/Ms. Nancy Ann Bell (Ctfy � Rolling B. ALLEN LAY Mayor FRANK E. HILL Mayor Pro Tom THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Councimembor JODY MURDOCK CotN dknembet GODFREY PERNELL O.O.S. Cc mcilmembor • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO.2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX 13101377.72BB E•mait citydrttlaol.com July 16,1997 Mr. Stanley Lamport Cox, Castle & Nicholson, LLP 2049 Century Park East, Twenty-eight Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-3284 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 545A, CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIED REQUESTS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A STABLE AND CORRAL BY THE INABILITY OF THE COMMISSION TO MAKE AFFIRMATIVE FINDINGS ON THE APPLICATIONS BY MAJORITY VOTE. MS. KELLY TSOU, 6 RINGBIT ROAD WEST (LOT 8-A-2-SF). Dear Mr. Lamport: At the regular meeting of the Rolling Hills City Council held Monday, July 14, 1997, the City Council continued consideration of the above referenced case to Monday, August 25, 1997. This hearing will be held in the Rolling Hills City Council Chambers, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, beginning at 7:30 p.m. As discussed at the meeting, you were directed to provide a report(s) addressing the following concerns. We will distribute this material to our soils and geology representatives at the County of Los Angeles, as well as the interested parties for their review and comment prior to the hearing on August 25th. Specifically, your report(s) should focus on: ♦ Effects of hydrology --how drainage will move from the property over time due to its proximity to the properties below and an evaluation of any possible disproportionate effect of that flow based upon this proximity. You should focus on 10, 20 and 50 year storm scenarios. • Bedrock and recompaction issues --proof of bedrock and compaction above bedrock, proof of actual recompaction area necessary for completion of this project. The proof of bedrock should focus on the depth of the bedrock over a larger area than was presented at the hearing on July 14th. Pnnted on Pecycied Pape. Mr. Stanley Lamport July 16,1997 Page 2 ♦ Stages of grading-- a graphic representation of proposed grading activities on the property over time. Perhaps, you could create grading maps which would show five stages of grading at 20% intervals until completion. This study should demonstrate where excavated soil will be stored on the property, the total volume amount of soil to be moved during the cut and fill process, depth of cuts, height of fills and procedures that will be taken to ensure that soil and debris will not enter or deface the canyon below the property. Additionally, you should carefully demonstrate how far down the slopes the grading and soil modifications will occur at every interval of this process. ♦ Stable location --an additional stable location that would not necessitate a Variance. Be sure to evaluate this location in terms of its proximity to the residence (35 feet from residence and 25 feet from property line required), and the ability to provide vehicular access to the stable at a 4:1 (25% slope). ♦ Quantity of hardscape--a detailed drawing of the quantity of hardscape. • Distance from Flying Triangle --there has been some difference of opinion as to the distance between this property, the proposed graded area and the Flying Triangle. Your demonstration of this distance in graphic form will be appreciated. We would appreciate having this information submitted to the City no later than Wednesday, August 6, 1997. If you are unable to meet this deadline, please call us at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your cooperation. If you wish to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, 51MQ Craig R. Nealis City Manager CRN:mlk �. israyen u. cc: City Council Ms. Lola Ungar, Planning Director Ms. Kelly Tsou Mr. Doug McHattie Mr. Roger North Dr. and Mrs. Alfred Marrone Mr. Bill Horn Dr. Gordon Schaye Mr. Charles Raine Mr. Ron Dessy Mr. and Mrs. Fritz Hartwig Mr. John McCarthy, Chairman Klondike Canyon Geologic Hazard Abatement District Mr. and Mrs. James Dederer Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Hummel Mrs. Gwendolyn Tucker Mr. and Mrs. Todd Lanman Mr. Patrick L. Wilson/Ms. Nancy Ann Bell Cu• • y oi /e0f44 9 wee B. ALLEN LAY Mayor FRANK E. HILL Mayor Pro Tem THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Councilmember JODY MURDOCK Councilmember GODFREY PERNELL, D.D.S. Councilmember August 18, 1997 Mr. Stanley Lamport Cox, Castle & Nicholson, LLP 2049 Century Park East, 28th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-3284 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 545A, CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIED REQUESTS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A STABLE AND CORRAL BY THE INABILITY OF THE COMMISSION TO MAKE AFFIRMATIVE FINDINGS ON THE APPLICATIONS BY MAJORITY VOTE. MS. KELLY TSOU, 6 RINGBIT ROAD WEST (LOT 8-A-2-SF). Dear Mr. Lamport: We received your correspondence dated August 14, 1997, requesting that the City Council continue the appeal of the above referenced case to September 8, 1997. This request will be presented to the City Council on August 25th. I anticipate that the City Council will approve this continuance as you are preparing responses to concerns that were expressed at a previous City Council meeting. s. Printed on Recycled Paper. • I Mr. Stanley Lamport August 18, 1997 Page 2 We will inform you of the City Council action on Tuesday, August 26th. Should you wish to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, V bk Craig R. Nealis City Manager CRN:mlk 08/18/971amport.ltr cc: City Council City Attorney Lola Ungar, Planning Director Mr. Robert Thomas, LA County • City o/ ie0m,4 _ue� JODY MURDOCK Mayor B. ALLEN LAY Mayor Pro Tem THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Councilmember FRANK E. HILL Councilmember GODFREY PERNELL, D.D.S. Councilmember March 25, 1997 Ms. Kelly Tsou • 4 Ringbit Road West Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 545A, CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIED REQUESTS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A N E W SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A STABLE AND CORRAL BY THE INABILITY OF THE COMMISSION TO MAKE AFFIRMATIVE FINDINGS ON THE APPLICATIONS BY MAJORITY VOTE. MS. KELLY TSOU, 6 RINGBIT ROAD WEST (LOT 8-A-2-SF) Dear Ms. Tsou: Members of the Rolling Hills City Council opened the public hearing regarding the above referenced Zoning Case and continued the public hearing to an adjourned regular meeting to be held on Tuesday, May 27, 1997 at your request. On May 27th, your appeal will be presented to the City Council beginning at 7:30 p.m. in the Rolling Hills City Council Chambers, 2 Portuguese Bend Road. Your attendance at that meeting will be appreciated. If there is any information you would like to submit to the City to be included in the staff report, please submit that material to the City no later than Wednesday, May 21, 1997 at 12:00 noon. ®Printed on Recycled Paper. i a Ms. Kelly Tsou March 25, 1997 Page 2 Should you wish to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, 574 /I% Craig R. Nealis City Manager CRN:mlk 03/25/97tsou.ltr cc: Lola Ungar, Principal Planner Stanley W. Lamport Doug McHattie Roger North Dr. and Mrs. Marrone Mr. and Mrs. Todd Lanman Ms. Leslie Dederer Mr. Charles Raine Ms. Sandra Heitzler • Ciy (I RO/fiL wee, July 18, 1996 Ms. Kelly Tsou and Mr. Ching Sung Tsou 4 Ringbit Road West Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: NEW APPLICATION FOR A PROJECT AT 6 RINGBIT ROAD WEST (LOT 3-A-2-SF) Dear Ms. and Mr. Tsou: • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityotrh@aol.com This letter shall serve as official notification that I have reviewed your new plans and accompanying information and determined, after consultation with the Planning Commission on July 16, 1996, that the proposal for a residential project that was recently submitted is sufficiently dissimilar to the prior application to allow you to reapply within twelve months from the prior denial (Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.30.040). The previous proposal was denied upon appeal to the City Council on May 28,1996 in Zoning Case No. 529A. The newly submitted plan includes an enlargement of the building pad, a reduction in the amount of grading, a reduction in the height of the building pad, a relocation of the structure, a removal of the retaining wall in the front yard setback that required a Variance, and a removal of the stable in the front yard setback. These changes constitute a sufficient basis to find the proposed application is not the same as the prior application and thus meets the standard for permitting a reapplication within twelve months from the prior denial. The amended project will require a Variance to permit the location of a future stable and corral within the front yard [Sections 17.16.200(A) and 17.38,] and Site Plan Review for the construction of a new single family residence and attached garage (Section 17.46). We will be happy to prepare an application packet for you. We have enclosed a copy of the 1996 Planning Commission Filing Deadline and Meeting Schedule. Feel free to call me or Principal Planner Lola Ungar at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, ,//11/i CRAIG R. NEALIS CITY MANAGER cc: Members of the City Council Members of the Planning Commission Ms. Lola Ungar, Principal Planner Mr. Michael Jenkins, City Attorney Mr. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney Ms. Peggy Minor, Rolling Hills Community Association Manager Mr. Stanley Lamport, Attorney Mr. Douglas McHattie, South Bay Engineering Printed on Recycled Paper. C41 o/ RO[%nv.J h/z 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION FILING DEADLINE AND MEETING SCHEDULE January INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 2 - Tuesday at 4:30 PM Filing Deadline For Next Month's Meeting 16 - Tuesday at 7:30 PM Planning Commission Meeting February 5 - Monday at 4:30 PM Filing Deadline For Next Month's Meeting 20 - Tuesday at 7:30 PM Planning Commission Meeting March 4 - Monday at 4:30 PM Filing Deadline For Next Month's Meeting 19 - Tuesday at 7:30 PM Planning Commission Meeting April 1- Monday at 4:30 PM Filing Deadline For Next Month's Meeting 16 - Tuesday at 7:30 PM Planning Commission Meeting May 6 - Monday at 4:30 PM Filing Deadline For Next Month's Meeting 21- Tuesday at 7:30 PM Planning Commission Meeting June 3 - Monday at 4:30 PM Filing Deadline For Next Month's Meeting 18 - Tuesday at 7:30 PM Planning Commission Meeting July 1- Monday at 4:30 PM Filing Deadline For Next Month's Meeting 16 - Tuesday at 7:30 PM Planning Commission Meeting August 5 - Monday at 4:30 PM Filing Deadline For Next Month's Meeting 20 - Tuesday at 7:30 PM Planning Commission Meeting September 3 - Tuesday at 4:30 PM Filing Deadline For Next Month's Meeting 17 - Tuesday at 7:30 PM Planning Commission Meeting October 7 - Monday at 4:30 PM Filing Deadline For Next Month's Meeting 15 - Tuesday at 7:30 PM Planning Commission Meeting November 4 - Monday at 4:30 PM Filing Deadline For Next Month's Meeting 19 - Tuesday at 7:30 PM Planning Commission Meeting December 2 - Monday at 4:30 PM Filing Deadline For Next Month's Meeting 17 - Tuesday at 7:30 PM Planning Commission Meeting 11/29/95/Imu/FORMS • • C1i, opeo eenS �aeP JODY MURDOCK Mayor B. ALLEN LAY Mayor Pro Tem TNOMAS.F. HEINSHEIMER Councilmember FRANK E. HILL Councilmember GODFREY PERNELL, D.D.S. Councilmember May 29, 1996 Ms. Kelly Tsou Mr. Ching Sung Tsou 6 Ringbit Road West Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377.7288 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 782: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE AND CORRAL, AND DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALLS IN ZONING CASE NO. 529A. Dear Ms. Tsou and Mr. Tsou: Resolution No. 782 was adopted by members of the Rolling Hills City Council at their adjourned regular meeting held Tuesday, May 28, 1996. This resolution memorializes the denial of your appeal and upholds the decision of the Planning Commission regarding this application. A copy of the staff report and resolution is enclosed for your records. Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.30.040 entitled "Time Period for Re- application" establishes the parameters in which a new application may be filed. We have enclosed a copy of that Municipal Code Section for your information. • • Ms. Kelly Tsou Mr. Ching Sung Tsou May 29,1996 Page 2 Should you wish to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to call. Your cooperation has been appreciated. Sincerely, hic4 Craig R. Nealis City Manager CRN:mlk ts)u.ltr cc: Ms. Lola Ungar, Principal Planner City Attorney Mr. Stanley Lamport Mr. Doug McHattie Ms. Peggy Minor, RHCA Manager RESOLUTION 0.782 • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE AND CORRAL, AND DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALLS IN ZONING CASE NO. 529A. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Requests have been filed by Ms. Kelly Tsou & Mr. Ching Sung Tsou with respect to real property located at 6 Ringbit Road West (Lot 8-A-2-SF), Rolling Hills, requesting a Variance to permit encroachment into the front yard setback to construct a stable, corral and retaining walls; and Site Plan Review of a proposed new residence. Section 2. On March 9, 1996, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 96-6 denying a request for a variance to encroach into the front yard setback to construct a stable and corral, and denying a request for a variance to encroach into the front yard setback to construct retaining walls. During the hearing process, the Commission discussed concerns related to the size of the building pad, the fragility of the hillside, amount of grading, drainage and hydrology within the immediate vicinity and in a wider area, and the restoration of native plants removed during the land development process. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, from all persons protesting the same, and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. Section 3. On March 25, 1996, an appeal was filed to the City Council. The Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal on April 8, 1996, April 22, 1996, and May 13, 1996 and at a field trip visit on April 29, 1996. During the hearing process, the Council discussed concerns related to the size of the building pad, the fragility of the hillside, amount of grading, and the drainage and hydrology within the immediate vicinity and in a wider area and other issues. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, from all persons protesting the same, and from members of the City staff and the City Council having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. Section 4. The City Council finds that the project qualifies as a Class 3 Exemption (State CA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)) and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 5. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or structure by at least 1,000 square feet and has the effect of increasing the size of the building by more than twenty- five percent (25%) in any thirty-six (36) month period. With respect to the Site Plan Review application, the City Council makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development includes a single family residence and attached garage. The residence is proposed to be 3,650 square feet, the garage is proposed to be 760 square feet, the stable is proposed to be 450 square feet and the service yard is proposed to be 96 square feet. The structural lot coverage proposed is 4,860 square feet or 4.0% and the total lot coverage proposed is 9,545 square feet or 7.8%. The building pad coverage proposed is 30.3%. B. The granting of the request for the Site Plan Review would not be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. Grading to create a 16,060 square foot building pad would require that 3,150 cubic yards of cut soil and 3,150 cubic yards of fill soil be moved to raise the building pad up to 11 feet at this hillside lot. The proposed structure does not comply with the General Plan requirement of maintaining strict grading practiSand low profile residential developmentSterns in the community. C. The development plan does not substantially preserve the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the project causes overdevelopment of the building pad due to the fact that a new pad must be created by cutting into portions of the hillside that would raise and expand the building pad on what is now a steep slope. D. The proposed development does not minimize building coverage on the pad and leaves little open space at the edges of the building pad. This makes the structure more visually prominent on the building pad than appropriate for the existing development pattern of the City. E. Although the proposed structure is smaller than some recent residences constructed in the City, the structure is not harmonious in scale and mass with the site. This lack of appropriate scale is exacerbated by its prominent location and its proposed development on a steep, fragile slope. For these reasons, the proposed development of the building pad is too large for the lot and is not consistent with the goals, purposes, and requirements of the Site Plan Review Ordinance. F. The proposed development does not preserve and is not integrated into the site design because existing natural topographic features of the lot including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and land forms will be destroyed to create a raised and enlarged building pad. G. The project will not be consistent with the General Plan requirement to maintain strict grading practices to preserve the community's natural terrain. The lot has already been graded for a building pad and the additional grading proposed is not necessary for development of a residential structure and would create a further detrimental visual impact due to the prominence and unique location of the site. H. The development plan does not follow the natural contours of the site to minimize grading because grading will be required to develop a larger building pad that involves extensive grading to raise the level of the building pad up to 11 feet. The property could be developed with less grading and with a smaller structure so that extensive grading would not be required. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby denies the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 529A for a proposed residential development. Section 7. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. A Variance to Sections 17.16.200(A)(3), 17.16.110, and 17.16.150 is required because these sections state that corrals or pens not be located in the front yard, that every parcel in the RA-S zone shall have a front yard of not less than 50 feet, measured horizontally from the front easement line; and that required yards be maintained unoccupied from the ground up of any structures. The applicants are requesting a Variance to encroach up to 35 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback to construct a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral within the front yard setback. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. Due to the denial by the City Council of the Site Plan Review application for this project, there is no approved site plan to which this Variance would apply and the City Council is unable to make affirmative findings for approval of this Variance. B. In addition, there are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone because the property could be developed with less extensive grading and residential development. Resolution No. 782 -2- • C. The Variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is not necessary because the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance discourage unnecessary grading and require that the City maintain strict grading practices to preserve the community's natural terrain. D. The granting of the Variance would be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The Variance will permit the construction of a stable and corral which will impact the neighboring properties because raising the building pad for the project will require unnecessary grading on a very fragile hillside that drains to the more fragile Flying Triangle Active Landslide Area. Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby denies the Variance for Zoning Case No. 529A to permit the construction of a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral to encroach up to 35 feet into the front yard setback. Section 9. A Variance to Sections 17.16.110 and 17.16.150 is required to construct retaining walls that will encroach up to 10.5 feet into the fifty (50) foot front yard setback, a total of 90 feet in length, that will not be more than 5 feet in height at any one point. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. Due to the denial by the City Council of the Site Plan Review application for this project, there is no approved site plan to attach to this Variance and the Planning Commission is unable to make affirmative findings for approval of this Variance. B. In addition, there are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone because the property could be developed with less grading and with a smaller structure so that a retaining wall would not be required. C. The Variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is not necessary because the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance discourage prominent structures on a slope and the property could be developed with less extensive grading and a smaller pad area thereby reducing the length and extent of the proposed wall. D. The granting of the Variance would be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The Variance will permit the construction of retaining walls which impact the neighboring properties and will allow the building pad to be increased in size and height in contravention to the low -profile development pattern in the community and the General Plan provisions intended to continue that development plan. Section 10. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby denies the Variance for Zoning Case No. 529A to permit the construction of a 90-foot long retaining wall that will not exceed 5 feet in height that will encroach a maximum of 10.5 feet into the front yard setback. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY, 1996. • )OD•Mi' ATTEST: K -ems-✓ MARILY L. KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK D MAYOR CR Resolution No. 782 -3- STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS • I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 782 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE AND CORRAL, AND DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALLS IN ZONING CASE NO. 529A. was approved and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission on May 28,1996 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Hill, Pernell, Mayor Pro Tem Lay and Mayor Murdock. 't NOES: None. ABSENT: Counci lmember Heinsheimer . ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution No. 782 -4- • 17.•.030--17.34.010 17.30.040 Time period for reapplication. Whenever an application has been denied and the denial becomes final, no new application for the same or similar request shall be accepted within one year of the denial date, unless the City Manager, after consultation with the Planning Commis- sion, finds that a sufficient change in circumstances has occurred to warrant a new application. (Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993). 218-24 (Rolling Hills 5/94) • • City 0/ Roiling INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377.7288 Agenda Item No.: 7.B. Mtg. Date: 5/28/96 DATE: MAY 28,1996 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTN: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 782: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE AND CORRAL, AND DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALLS IN ZONING CASE NO. 529A. Ms. Kelly Tsou & Mr. Ching Sung Tsou, 6 Ringbit Road West (Lot 8-A-2-SF) BACKGROUND At the May 13, 1996 meeting, the City Council denied the appeal for the proposed project and upheld the decision of the Planning Commission. Staff has prepared the attached resolution memorializing this action of the City Council. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve Resolution No. 782. • • RESOLUTION NO. 782 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE AND CORRAL, AND DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALLS IN ZONING CASE NO. 529A. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Requests have been filed by Ms. Kelly Tsou & Mr. Ching Sung Tsou with respect to real property located at 6 Ringbit Road West (Lot 8-A-2-SF), Rolling Hills, requesting a Variance to permit encroachment into the front yard setback to construct a stable, corral and retaining walls; and Site Plan Review of a proposed new residence. Section 2. On March 9, 1996, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 96-6 denying a request for a variance to encroach into the front yard setback to construct a stable and corral, and denying a request for a variance to encroach into the front yard setback to construct retaining walls. During the hearing process, the Commission discussed concerns related to the size of the building pad, the fragility of the hillside, amount of grading, drainage and hydrology within the immediate vicinity and in a wider area, and the restoration of native plants removed during the land development process. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, from all persons protesting the same, and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. Section 3. On March 25, 1996, an appeal was filed to the City Council. The Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal on April 8, 1996, April 22, 1996, and May 13, 1996 and at a field trip visit on April 29, 1996. During the hearing process, the Council discussed concerns related to the size of the building pad, the fragility of the hillside, amount of grading, and the drainage and hydrology within the immediate vicinity and in a wider area and other issues. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, from all persons protesting the same, and from members of the City staff and the City Council having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. Section 4. The City Council finds that the project qualifies as a Class 3 Exemption (State CA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)) and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. • • DRAFT Section 5, Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or structure by at least 1,000 square feet and has the effect of increasing the size of the building by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six (36) month period. With respect to the Site Plan Review application, the City Council makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development includes a single family residence and attached garage. The residence is proposed to be 3,650 square feet, the garage is proposed to be 760 square feet, the stable is proposed to be 450 square feet and the service yard is proposed to be 96 square feet. The structural lot coverage proposed is 4,860 square feet or 4.0% and the total lot coverage proposed is 9,545 square feet or 7.8%. The building pad coverage proposed is 30.3%. B. The granting of the request for the Site Plan Review would not be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. Grading to create a 16,060 square foot building pad would require that 3,150 cubic yards of cut soil and 3,150 cubic yards of fill soil be moved to raise the building pad up to 11 feet at this hillside lot. The proposed structure does not comply with the General Plan requirement of maintaining strict grading practices and low profile residential development patterns in the community. C. The development plan does not substantially preserve the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the project causes overdevelopment of the building pad due to the fact that a new pad must be created by cutting into portions of the hillside that would raise and expand the building pad on what is now a steep slope. D. The proposed development does not minimize building coverage on the pad and leaves little open space at the edges of the building pad. This makes the structure more visually prominent on the building pad than appropriate for the existing development pattern of the City. E. Although the proposed structure is smaller than some recent residences constructed in the City, the structure is not harmonious in scale and mass with the site. This lack of appropriate scale is exacerbated by its prominent location and its proposed development on a steep, fragile slope. For these reasons, the proposed development of the building pad is too large for the lot and is not consistent with the goals, purposes, and requirements of the Site Plan Review Ordinance. F. The proposed development does not preserve and is not integrated into the site design because existing natural topographic features of the lot including RESOLUTION NO. 782 PAGE 2 OF 5 DRAFT surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and land forms will be destroyed to create a raised and enlarged building pad. G. The project will not be consistent with the General Plan requirement to maintain strict grading practices to preserve the community's natural terrain. The lot has already been graded for a building pad and the additional grading proposed is not necessary for development of a residential structure and would create a further detrimental visual impact due to the prominence and unique location of the site. H. The development plan does not follow the natural contours of the site to minimize grading because grading will be required to develop a larger building pad that involves extensive grading to raise the level of the building pad up to 11 feet. The property could be developed with less grading and with a smaller structure so that extensive grading would not be required. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby denies the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 529A for a proposed residential development. Section 7. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. A Variance to Sections 17.16.200(A)(3), 17.16.110, and 17.16.150 is required because these sections state that corrals or pens not be located in the front yard, that every parcel in the RA-S zone shall have a front yard of not less than 50 feet, measured horizontally from the front easement line; and that required yards be maintained unoccupied from the ground up of any structures. The applicants are requesting a Variance to encroach up to 35 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback to construct a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral within the front yard setback. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. Due to the denial by the City Council of the Site Plan Review application for this project, there is no approved site plan to which this Variance would apply and the City Council is unable to make affirmative findings for approval of this Variance. B. In addition, there are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone because the property could be developed with less extensive grading and residential development. C. The Variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, RESOLUTION NO. 782 PAGE 3 OF 5 • • DRAFT but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is not necessary because the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance discourage unnecessary grading and require that the City maintain strict grading practices to preserve the community's natural terrain. D. The granting of the Variance would be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The Variance will permit the construction of a stable and corral which will impact the neighboring properties because raising the building pad for the project will require unnecessary grading on a very fragile hillside that drains to the more fragile Flying Triangle Active Landslide Area. Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby denies the Variance for Zoning Case No. 529A to permit the construction of a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral to encroach up to 35 feet into the front yard setback. Section 9. A Variance to Sections 17.16.110 and 17.16.150 is required to construct retaining walls that will encroach up to 10.5 feet into the fifty (50) foot front yard setback, a total of 90 feet in length, that will not be more than 5 feet in height at any one point. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. Due to the denial by the City Council of the Site Plan Review application for this project, there is no approved site plan to attach to this Variance and the Planning Commission is unable to make affirmative findings for approval of this Variance. B. In addition, there are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone because the property could be developed with less grading and with a smaller structure so that a retaining wall would not be required. C. The Variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is not necessary because the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance discourage prominent structures on a slope and the property could be developed with less extensive grading and a smaller pad area thereby reducing the length and extent of the proposed wall. D. The granting of the Variance would be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The Variance will permit the construction of retaining walls which impact the neighboring properties and will allow the building pad to be increased in size and height in contravention to the low -profile RESOLUTION NO. 782 PAGE 4 OF 5 DRAFT development pattern in the community and the General Plan provisions intended to continue that development plan. Section 10. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby denies the Variance for Zoning Case No. 529A to permit the construction of a 90- foot long retaining wall that will not exceed 5 feet in height that will encroach a maximum of 10.5 feet into the front yard setback. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY, 1996. JODY MURDOCK, MAYOR ATTEST: MARILYN L. KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 782 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE AND CORRAL, AND DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALLS IN ZONING CASE NO. 529A. was approved and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission on May 28,1996 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 782 PAGE 5 OF 5 • • Ci1y o/ RO/I q Jh//? JODY MURDOCK Mayor B. ALLEN LAY Mayor Pro Tern THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Councilmember FRANK E. HILL Councilmember GODFREY PERNELL, D.D.S. Councilmember May 14,1996 Ms. Kelly Tsou 4 Ringbit Road West Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD • ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 529A CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIED REQUESTS FOR A VARIANCE TO PERMIT RETAINING WALLS TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A FUTURE STABLE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ATTACHED GARAGE. MS. KELLY TSOU & MR. CHING SUNG TSOU, 6 RINGBIT ROAD WEST (LOT 8-A-2-SF). Dear Ms. Tsou: At the Regular Meeting of the Rolling Hills City Council held Monday, May 13, 1996, the City Council closed the public hearing and upheld the decision of the Planning Commission relative to the denial of your request for specific variances and Site Plan Review for construction of a new single family residence and attached garage at 6 Ringbit Road West. A Resolution memorializing this City Council action will be prepared and presented to the City Council at their Regular Adjourned Meeting to be held on Tuesday, May 28, 1996, beginning at 7:30 p.m. in the Rolling Hills City Council Chambers, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills. • Ms. Kelly Tsou May 14,1996 Page 2 Should you wish to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, (5A. 14 Craig R. Nealis City Manager CRN:mlk 05/14/96tsou.ltr cc: City Council Michael Jenkins Stanley Lamport Doug McHattie Peggy Minor, RHCA Manager Lola Ungar, Principal Planner